Wagenknecht Manifesto: Is the media coverage of the war too one-sided?

Alice Schwarzer, Sahra Wagenknecht and 600,000 supporters are calling for an end to arms deliveries.

Is that a lot for an online petition?

We asked the platform - and received a mysterious answer.

Cologne – There has been fighting in Ukraine for a year.

On February 24, Russia invaded Ukraine in violation of international law.

Up to this point, most observers agree.

This is where the argumentative minefield begins.

Ukraine needs more weapons, this war is also our war, and Russia must be defeated at all costs, say some.

More weapons would only delay the outcome and cause more suffering, others say that negotiations should be negotiated now.

The Others is a faction whose numerical size has been updated daily since February 10th.

On this day, left-wing politician Sahra Wagenknecht and women's rights activist Alice Schwarzer publish their "Manifesto for Peace".

A petition signed by almost 600,000 people (as of February 22).

An impressive number?

Yes and no.

It's not the most successful petition of all time.

According to change.org, the current record is 5.3 million signatures.

The topic: the controversial EU copyright reform ("Article 13").

In second place is a petition that, with 1.6 million supporters, wanted to prevent the budget cuts for midwives.

How many signatures a petition receives on average, how the clout of the Wagenknecht/Schwarzer petition is to be assessed in comparison, and how many people have signed anonymously - all exciting questions that "change.org" does not answer despite being asked twice.

"Manifesto for Peace": Great media echo

So only speculation remains.

The almost 600,000 signatures seem in view of the scope of the concern - and in comparison to the rather niche top petitions - expandable.

Anyone who regularly reads the news, tunes in to talk shows or follows parliamentary debates should still be surprised.

The position of Schwarzer and Wagenknecht (stop arms deliveries, negotiate with Putin) is not exactly compatible with the mainstream.

The media response to the petition confirms this. Der

named the two women the "losers of the day".

In many other media - from

to

– it rained criticism.

The accusation: the position is naive, unrealistic and leaves open how Russia, which is obviously not willing to negotiate, should be persuaded to negotiate.

On top of that, Ukraine is being denied the right to sovereignty and self-determination.

Other tones can also be heard, sometimes even in the same media.

And it's not just Schwarzer and Wagenknecht who represent the narrative.

69 more or less well-known people signed the manifesto first, including CSU politician Peter Gauweiler, musician Reinhard Mey and Green politician Antje Vollmer.

Philosopher Jürgen Habermas published a guest article in the

entitled “A plea for negotiations”.

Heribert Prantl, a long-time member of the SZ editor-in-chief, argues similarly.

One-sided reporting: were Precht and Welzer right after all?

All indications that the corridor of opinion in the German public is not that narrow after all?

After all, that “finding” was reason enough for Richard David Precht and Harald Welzer to write a book denouncing the (supposed?) herd instinct of the German media.

The petition should give them a boost, after all, the manifesto contains pretty much exactly those demands that Precht and Welzer missed in the leading German media.

Marcus Maurer observes this very closely.

He researches political communication at the University of Mainz and has conducted a study examining how the German media reported in the first three months after the start of the war.

The result: In some points, Welzer and Precht were wrong or exaggerated too much, for example, the government, unlike what is presented in the book, was quite harshly criticized.

However, Maurer can scientifically confirm one essential point: "In the leading German media there was a clear predominance in favor of arms deliveries." The call for heavy weapons (exception: Spiegel

was also read more often than average.

Is there a connection here?

A distorted discussion on the one hand and a part of the population that doesn't feel seen?

"Regular polls show that the majority wants to support Ukraine," says Maurer.

"But there is also a not-so-small opposing faction that is underrepresented in public." Maurer's study did not investigate why this is the case.

"I can only speculate: the discussion on major issues - war, corona - is conducted morally, not on the basis of arguments.

In the perception of many people it was different in the past.

It was more about the thing and not about standing on the 'right side'.

But that is not proven.”

Petition platform "change.org" reacts strangely

On Saturday it will become obvious how real the number 600,000 really is.

Then a rally is planned in Berlin, which will be heavily discussed in advance.

The main question is who is running there.

It is the lack of demarcation from the right edge that is repeatedly demanded.

“Anyone who wants to demonstrate with an honest heart for peace and negotiations is welcome at our rally.

Far-right flags or symbols, on the other hand, have no place on it and will not be tolerated.

There is nothing more to say about it," Wagenknecht told the "Spiegel".

In the meantime, the first signatories have withdrawn their support, including the theologian Margot Käßmann.

The top of the left is also at a distance from Wagenknecht.

The mysterious response from the platform operator also shows how delicate the whole issue is.

Although our editors did not ask about it, the spokesperson seems to be very keen to emphasize that "change.org" is an open platform where different political views have their say.

Without saying it explicitly, the lines read like a distancing.

On top of that, he asks that quotes that he sent himself and which do not answer most of the questions be submitted in advance - and then please also deliver the entire text at the same time.

It remains a minefield.